Follow The Discreet Traveler by e-mail!

Wednesday, December 9, 2015

If you’re an American abroad, you might sometimes
experience this phenomenon as I have. Morning after morning, I walk in to work,
or otherwise encounter British people, and someone asks me about whatever the
latest news headline from America is. Often this has to do with guns. The
perception in Britain is that every mass shooting is “just another day in
America,” and statistically, that is true. Other times the question is “why do
Americans not want health care?” or, why would Americans vote against their own
economic interests?

I can’t fully answer these questions, and I’m weary
of them. How should I really understand “Americans” (that monolithic group)
when I haven’t lived there for over 15 years? But the latest round of questions
has to do with one of the presidential candidates, of whom, let’s be
reasonable, thereshouldn’t even be any
yet since the election is next year. How, I am asked, did a celebrity
previously famous for being mean on a television show (and being rich) get to
be an apparently leading contender for the presidency of the United States?

So here are a few thoughts on that subject. I don’t
claim that any of these are original; I’m just pulling together ideas for
convenience’s sake. And I hope, by doing so here, not to have to post about him
any more.

Since I don’t think he deserves any more publicity
from me, I’m not going to repeat his opinions, all of which are easily found on
the news. In fact, I’m not even going to name drop—I’ll just nickname this guy
Far-right Arsehole Saying Crap and Insisting that Satan is Theotherguy (FASCIST
for short). A lot of people, including in the U.S., are worked up about FASCIST
and his persistent popularity. Should they be?

First, the scary thing about FASCIST is not what he
says, but the fact that so many people like what they hear. In America, anyone
can say anything. That’s the great thing about freedom of speech (a right that
is curtailed in most other countries, including Great Britain). FASCIST is able
to say anything that he wants and, in turn, we are free to judge him on that
basis. Why are a lot of Americans still judging him so favorably?

Consider why he can afford to say stuff that would sink any
other candidate’s campaign: He’s a gazillionaire. Most other candidates depend
on donations and, at some point, would become so controversial that those
donations would dry up. He’s immune to that. This appeals to many people: the
perception that he is a “self-made man,” that he’s free to say what other
people only think. In fact, Republican strategists who don’t support him, but
would like their preferred candidates to learn from his success, identify this
as his number one advantage: the perception that he cannot be bought. (The only
other candidate in this position is Bernie Sanders, a democratic socialist.)

Second, FASCIST is appealing to two very rich veins
in American politics that have existed about as long as the country has. One is
anti-intellectualism. The resentment of education has always been stronger in America than the resentment of wealth. People are readier to forgive someone
for being richer than they’ll ever be, than for being professorial. (Personally,
I think this explains President Obama’s problem more than racism.) This
absolutely baffles non-Americans, almost to the extent that the Second
Amendment does. Don’t these Americans know that they’ll never be rich like this
guy, that his interests are aligned precisely against theirs? Why do they care
more about the values he appeals to than their own economic wellbeing?

Because of the value of anti-intellectualism, facts
are not effective against his appeal. For example, recent comments make clear
that FASCIST doesn’t know what he is talking about in regard to several
subjects: London, its police officers, Islam, and for that matter Christianity.
So what? His fans do not care in the least. They don’t know London or Muslims,
and they already have their own understanding of Christianity which neither he
nor anyone else can shake. They care how they feel.

And this is the other rich vein that has always
existed in American politics: nativism. Before the Muslim-bashing took off,
Mexican immigrants were bearing the brunt of this, but it’s nothing new. Late
in the 19th century, the long, rich anti-Catholic tradition in
America reached new heights in a movement called, appropriately, the
Know-Nothings. The laws and arguments of that era were against Catholics and
their churches in an eerily similar way to the attacks on Muslims and mosques
now. What name could more glory in the anti-intellectualism of America than the
Know-Nothings?

From the first (non-European) inhabitants of
America, to African slaves, to Catholics, Chinese immigrants,
Japanese-Americans, and yes, Jews; there have always been people who threatened
“real Americans’” way of life, and in return, they were persecuted to the
fullest extent possible. That ranged from genocide to the terrorizing of black
Americans and the World War II internment camps. By those standards, we have
seen nothing yet.

I don’t mean that fascism shouldn’t be taken
seriously. It always should. But it can’t be resisted, or even fully explained,
by facts. Not when people understand democracy to mean that their opinions
carry equal weight with facts.

I hope that the rest of the world need not fear
a FASCIST presidency, because Americans will work this out. My opinion is that after the outlying primary election in New
Hampshire and caucus in Iowa, some sort of reason will return to the Republican primaries starting in South Carolina. That’s right—reason will return in the
state that gave birth to the Civil War and flew the Confederate flag until this
year. Now that’s a scary thought.

In September I am trekking Mount Kilimanjaro for Oxfam.

My author Web site

About Me

Walking the line between discretion and paranoia, I am always writing and travel as much as I can. My first novel, Arusha, was a Lambda Literary Award Finalist. My second novel is The Trees in the Field.